Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Section 2 is an assessment order and lasts up to 28 days; it cannot be renewed. It can be instituted following an assessment under the Act by two doctors and an AMHP. At least one of these doctors must be a Section 12 approved doctor. The other must either have had previous acquaintance with the person under assessment, or also be a Section 12 approved doctor. This latter rule can be broken in an emergency situation where the person is not known to any available doctors and two Section 12 approved doctors cannot be found. In any case, the two doctors must not be employed in the same service, to ensure independence. Commonly, in order to satisfy this requirement, a psychiatrist will perform a joint assessment with a general practitioner (GP). A Mental Health Act assessment can take place anywhere, but commonly occurs in a hospital, at a police station, or in a person’s home.

If the two doctors agree that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, and that this is of a nature or to a degree that, despite his refusal to go to hospital, he ought to be detained in hospital in the interest of his own health, his safety, or for the protection of others, they complete a medical recommendation form and give this to the AMHP. If the AMHP agrees that there is no viable alternative to detaining the person in hospital, she will complete an application form requesting that the hospital managers detain the person. He will then be transported to hospital and the period of assessment begins. Treatment, such as medication, can be given against the person’s wishes under Section 2 assessment orders, as observation of response to treatment constitutes part of the assessment process.

It is rather sinister, is it not, that the gender of the person requesting the detention of the lunatic is assumed to be female, while the gender of the lunatic is assumed to male?

However, I am sure most men won't have noticed or really don't mind. Most of them are too fucking thick and degenerate now anyway to know they are being insulted.

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Sally Hitchiner has blocked Claire Khaw on Twitter, which about says it all for the her preparedness to engage in debate. Clearly, this woman already knows she doesn't have a stiletto to stand on.

Perhaps Sally Hitchiner is the best argument against having female bishops. Then we might have "female bishop porn". And after that, perhaps, "female archbishop porn". It would bring the entire Church of England clergy into even more disrepute and entrench further the pornocratic matriarchy we now have.

"I'm not really sure what is Catholic about this organisation; I mean, in the sense that being Catholic might involve believing in what the Catholic Church teaches, but I might be old-fashioned in these matters. However, could you imagine the BBC daring to wheel on a Muslim who mounts sustained and bitter assaults on key aspects of Mohammed's message, while claiming he was an Islamic spokesman?"

Valerie J Stroud, one of the most prominent "Catholic" dissenters from Rome, from an organisation called Catholics for a Changing Church, who are always banging on negatively about the Pope etc etc.

5. Establish Labour Exchange Centres, ie provide a FREE service locally and nationally that puts someone who wants a job in touch with someone who wants a job done.

6. Make bastardy a disgrace.

7. Introduce of a system of charity broking so that someone with spare dosh can give to someone in need of it, a bit like Eye Need. http://www.eyeadvertise.co.uk/

8. Establish local and national marriage bureaux to encourage marriage.

9. Establish a system of Marital Relationship Management. Under this system all couples will have to appoint a mutually agreed Friend of the Marriage (a mutual friend before the marriage would be ideal) to whom they can complain about each other. This Friend of the Marriage will make a record of events and opinions, as well as make helpful and conciliatory suggestions so that the couple stay married. However, if this is impossible, a record of fault can be established and be taken into account in any divorce settlement. In the event of uxoricide or homicidal widowhood, the court should have a ready-prepared record of the marriage within which may contain evidence of motive as well as a history of violence.

10. Establish a single party state. This means all MPs would be deemed to be a member of only one party, ie the Party of National Interest, which will have a Party Rule Book applicable to all. These rules will protect the rights of individual members from the leader and his cronies and certainly their right to privacy, property, position in the party and free speech. All party whips will be retired. All MPs will have a residential connection to the constituency they represent, and never be parachuted in by the party. All MPs will be subjected to annual elections just like CEOs and other directors at a shareholders' AGM.

13. Citizens' militias will be established so that they can be called up to keep order. If the CHAVs, NEETs, and single mum sluts, slags and slappers and their feral offspring get restive, the locals who know who they are and where they live will sort them out.

14. Abolish the minimum wage.

15. Reintroduce slavery to ease any possible labour shortages and to make use of the labour of bankrupts and convicted criminals. (A maximum 5 year term of slavery should not be exceeded to protect their yumanrites.)

16. Reintroduce orphanages so those inclined to adopt can see which are the most loveable and youngest ones, without faffing around for 3 years with the Adoption Agency only to be given an emotionally-damaged and disruptive child.

17. Establish Homes for Fallen Women and their Illegitimate Children if these single mothers will not give up their babies to orphanages.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Fleet Street Fox

Fleet Street Fox writes a popular anonymous blog revealing the workings, attitudes and shenanigans of a tabloid newsroom. Having used her blog to give her a way to voice her own opinions, journalist Susie Boniface finally confirmed her true identity just a few days ago. She explains why she revealed who she is, and discusses her new book and what the future holds for Fleet Street Fox.

The Diaries of Fleet Street Fox, published by Constable on February 21 2013.

I suppose she thinks it is the nature of a woman to yield. Pathetic and contemptible in a female POLITICIAN. If she were a man she would be called a GUTLESS WIMP, but as she is female this will be fine in our Culture of Excuses.

The reason why married couples should be treated as a degree above same-sex couples, all things being equal, is that married couples are the ones whose children are most likely to be brought up in an environment that produces well-adjusted adults capable of becoming useful citizens.

Same-sex couples do not produce offspring with their civil partner.

Same sex couples do not undergo the sacrifice, burden and inconvenience of rearing the next generation.

If same-sex couples were capable of sexual reproduction only then would it be moral to have gay marriage.

It is as well to acknowledge that it was feminism that was the thin end of the wedge that led to gay marriage. For some reason, most women do not mind about gay marriage. It is either because marriage was the invention of a man and they spitefully wish to destroy his creation, or because they are too stupid and irresponsible to grasp the pivotal role of marriage in regulating human relations.

Even the Muslims have been very quiet about gay marriage, apart from http://www.islam21c.com/campaigns/8346-muslims-a-the-proposed-gay-marriage-bill, which I am sure virtually no one has read. Perhaps they don't think it is anything to do with them because their people would not be so silly as to go for gay marriage like the kuffar who is Cursed by God, but how do they know, once it is legal?

The JOYS OF GAY SEX

What is so great about gay sex?

It is purely recreational and non-procreative. Gay sex has all the fun and games without the inconvenience of giving birth to children nor the expense of rearing them and the trouble of trying to bring them up properly.

If you have no children, they cannot disgrace and disappoint you, can they?

What do you think might happen if we all decided to go for this option?

Could this be the reason why gay sex was once considered immoral?

Some of you may have heard of Kant's unversalisability principle which states that a thing can only be moral if no harm occurs even if everyone in society does it.

Gay marriage is immoral because it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because gay people already have their civil partnership (which gives them the same rights as a married couple against each other the most important of which is the ability to inherit each other's property free of inheritance tax which starts at 40%). However, this is not enough for them, and they are now encroaching on the territory of heterosexuals for whom the institution of marriage was originally created.Marriage was created for the purpose of rearing children and passing on your traditions, property and the knowledge your ancestors have accumulated on to the next generation and to maintain and augment what you already have. If you do not do this, you will lose your wealth and status in life and your offspring will be degenerate. If most of the offspring of most parents in a society are degenerate then they will be vulnerable to foreign invasion and exploitation.It is a delicate mechanism that must not be tampered with by the ignorant and the immoral, the frivolous, the irresponsible and the venal, as you would expect someone to be who has become British Prime Minister without knowing what magna carta is. As for the evil that they cannot see, it is already apparent to me. It is the equivalent of alcoholic asking for more drink after he is already drunk. It is evidence of the alcoholism that will eventually kill him. The fact that a Conservative Prime Minister can propose such an immoral and insane piece of legislation and have so much support is indicative of the degeneracy and dementia of the British.

Confucius believed that social disorder often stemmed from failure to perceive, understand, and deal with reality. Fundamentally, then, social disorder can stem from the failure to call things by their proper names, and his solution to this was the rectification of names. He gave an explanation to one of his disciples:

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

That is why the indigenous white working classes are no longer fit for the purpose of working and immigrant foreign labour is always required or British businesses would simply collapse or we would be back to wildcat strikes and the three day week.

That is why I was arrested by five policemen for saying something that offended Tourette's sufferers. Would I be able to call the cops and get someone incarcerated for a whole day just because I was offended? Could the Queen? Of course not.

Only an absolutely demented society would privilege the disabled over and above their own monarch, and only a civilisation suffering from collective dementia would want to redefine the meaning of marriage so it can become the plaything of the LGBT community.

So there you have it: we live in a matriarchy and to live in a matriarchy is the civilisational equivalent of being told you have cancer, or that your rotten gangrenous limb has to be amputated or you will die.

If the proportion of female MPs supporting gay marriage is higher than the proportion of male MPs supporting gay marriage, is this indicative that women are even less to be trusted in politics than men and generally less capable of rational, moral and independent thought?

If it is the case that female MPs are less independent, less supportive of the institution of marriage and more immoral than male MPs, then it is clear that feminism has been a civilisational and moral disaster for the West.

If that is so, should we not destroy feminism before it destroys us?

Feminism is the ridiculous notion that it is either sustainable or moral to allow women to do men's jobs badly while neglecting their own work.